Transcript Repeat speeding offenders – Results from research in Queensland, Australia Dr Judy Fleiter Department of Transport, Finland 5 June 2012 CRICOS No.

Repeat speeding offenders –
Results from research in
Queensland, Australia
Dr Judy Fleiter
Department of Transport, Finland
5 June 2012
CRICOS No. 00213J
Acknowledgements
 Co-researchers
– Barry Watson, Vic Siskind, Angela Watson
 Australian Research Council
– Department of Transport and Main Roads
– Queensland Police Service
– Office of Economic and Statistical Research
 National Health and Medical Research
Council Asia-Australia Postdoctoral Research
Fellowship
Overview
 Speeding and crash involvement in Australia
 Speeding recidivist research in Queensland
 Challenges from an Australian perspective
 Auditor-General reviews of speed camera programs
 Implications for future speed management
Australia
Australia = 22.8 million people
Queensland = 4.5 million people
Land area = 1.7 million km2
Driver’s licences = 3.1 million
Reg.vehicles = 4.3 million
Brisbane
Australian Road Deaths:
Improvements from 1970-2010
30.4 deaths/100,000 people
6.1 deaths/100,000 people
With a 2-fold increase in vehicles & 50% growth in population
Improvements in Road Safety in
Queensland since 1967
Speed management in Australia
(1)
 Over the last 2 decades, jurisdictions have
adopted a ‘holistic’ approach to reducing
speeding:
– Road environment improvements (e.g. lower urban
speed limits, school zones, road treatments)
– Enforcement programs (e.g. traffic patrols, fixed &
mobile speed cameras, point-to-point cameras)
– Education programs (e.g. mass media education)
– Intelligent Transport System (ITS) measures (e.g.
vehicle activated and variable message signs)
Speed management in Australia
(2)
 Strong reliance on traffic law enforcement programs:
− traffic laws (eg. speed limits)
− traffic policing (eg. speed cameras)
− sanctions (eg. fines, demerit points, licence loss)
Speeding enforcement in Queensland
 History:
– 1997:
– 2003:
– 2007:
– 2010:
– 2011:
Mobile speed cameras (highly visible, randomly
deployed around selected ‘crash’ sites)
Penalties for speeding substantially increased
Fixed ‘blackspot’ speed cameras and increase in
mobile speed camera sites
Covert speed cameras introduced
Point-to-point (average) speed cameras operational
on 1 section of highway north of Brisbane
 Policing supported by mass-media education
 Evaluations of mobile speed cameras indicate:
− 34% reduction in fatal crashes within 2km of sites
− 42% reduction in serious casualty crashes within 2km
Newstead, 2006; Cameron, 2008; Carnis, Rakotonirainy & Fleiter, 2008
Focus of Traffic Policing
• The Fatal 4
– Speeding
– Drink driving
– Fatigue – driving while tired
– Non-use of Seatbelts
Percentage of fatalities involving speeding
drivers/riders in Queensland: 12 months ending
January 2006 -2011
30
25
20
%
15
10
5
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
2010
2011
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2011
CRICOS No. 00213J
Percentage of speeding infringements per
penalty category, Queensland
60
50.7
% of infringements
50
40
40.3
30
20
7.6
10
1
0.4
31-40
40+
0
< 13
13-20
21-30
Km/hour above the speed limit
Queensland Transport, 2008
Speeding offenders...
• Are they all the same?
• Does increasing penalties make any difference?
• What else do they do?
• What might best change their driving behaviour?
Background to recidivism
research project
 In April 2003, Queensland introduced changes to the
speeding penalty regime:
– Increased monetary fines
– Automatic licence suspension for high range speeding (for >40
km/h over the speed limit)
– Increased the number of offence bands/categories
 The stated rationale for this change was to deter speeding
behaviour
Speeding penalty changes
Speeding offences and penalties in Qld prior to 17 April, 2003
Offence
Fine
Demerit Points
<15 km/hr over speed limit
$90
1
15-29 km/hr over speed limit
$135
3
30-44 km/hr over speed limit
$180
4
>44 km/hr over speed limit
$255
6
Speeding offences and penalties in Qld from 17 April, 2003
Offence
Fine
Demerit Points
<13 km/hr over speed limit
$100
1
13-20 km/hr over speed limit
$150
3
21-29 km/hr over speed limit
$250
4
30-40 km/hr over speed limit
$300
6
>40 km/hr over speed limit
$700
8 + 6 months suspension
The effectiveness of increases in
speeding penalties
 Limited international research into effectiveness of
different speeding penalties
 Increasing speeding penalties severity (in isolation) has
been found to produce very few impacts on behaviour in
Sweden (1982 & 1987) and Norway (1995-2004)
 Need to consider impact of speeding penalties in:
– deterring the general population from speeding (general
deterrence)
– reducing recidivism among offenders (specific deterrence)
Watson et al. 2010
Speeding recidivism research
 Our research aimed to:
 examine the specific deterrent impact of the
changes
 profile speeding offenders/recidivists
Method (1)
 Crash and offence data from 1996 to 2007
obtained for two cohorts of drivers:
 58,000 drivers convicted of speeding in May 2001
 53,000 drivers convicted of speeding in May 2003
 Data obtained included details of:
– index offence
– previous and subsequent traffic crashes and offences
– demographic characteristics
– licence type and class
Method (2)
 Final sample for current analyses excluded interstate
and international licence holders:
– 2001 pre-penalty change cohort (n = 46,681)
– 2003 post-penalty change cohort (n = 42,180)
 Speeding offence records for two years after the index
offence were examined
 Distinction between:
 Absolute specific deterrence – the total prevention of re-offending
 Marginal specific deterrence – a reduction in re-offending
Measures of recidivism
In the follow up period:
1. Proportion of all offenders detected re-offending
(Absolute specific deterrence)
2. Average number of offences (Absolute and
marginal specific deterrence)
3. Length of delay to re-offence among re-offenders
(Marginal specific deterrence)
4. Average number of re-offences among reoffenders (Marginal specific deterrence)
CRICOS No. 00213J
Overall impact of penalty change
Measure of recidivism
Hypotheses
Outcome
Overall proportion of re-offending Reduction in the proportion who rein the follow up period
offend after penalty change

Overall frequency of re-offending
in the follow up period

Length of delay to re-offence
among re-offenders
Average number of re-offences
committed by those who reoffended
Reduction in average number of
offences committed (overall) after
penalty change
Among those who re-offend, longer
delay to re-offence after penalty
change
Among those who re-offend,
reduction in the average number of
re-offences after penalty change


Watson et al. 2010
Potential influencing factors –
differential effects
1. Index offence severity
2. Offence history
1. Index Offence Severity
 Low-range offences: those from the
lowest offence category
 High-range offences: those that were
30km/hr or greater over the speed limit
 Mid-range offences: all other offences
Effects of index offence severity
 Compared to those with mid- and low-range
offences, those with high-range index offence
had a significantly:
− greater proportion re-offending;
− higher average number of offences; and
− higher average number of re-offences.
 No differential effects of penalty change
2. Offence History
 Low-range offenders: no speeding offences
prior to index
 High-range offenders: 2 or more speeding
offences prior to index, where at least two
were 30 km/hr or greater over the speed limit
 Mid-range offenders: all other offenders
Effects of offence history
 Compared to mid- and low-range offenders,
high-range offenders had a significantly:
− greater proportion re-offending;
− higher average number of offences;
− fewer days until re-offence; and
− higher average number of re-offences.
 No differential effects of penalty change
Potential Confounding Factors
1. Intensity of speed enforcement
– Speed enforcement hours
2. Community perceptions
– Annual community attitudes surveys
3. Driving exposure
– Fuel sales
1. Intensity of speed enforcement
Speed
2001 Cohort period
2003 Cohort period
Percentage
enforcement May 2001 – April 2003 May 2003 – April 2005
change
Measure*
Hours of
operation
Number of
offences
detected
Detection
rate
414,699
594,093
43%
1,170,373
1,121,735
- 4%
2.82
1.89
* Includes all speed camera and radar based speed enforcement
2. Community perceptions
 The trend in self-reported exposure (self and
others) to speed cameras was stable from 1998
to 2005.
 Reported awareness of penalty change:
– 69% in 2003
– 39% in 2004
 However, knowledge of the penalty change
varied in terms of accuracy.
3. Driving exposure
Time period
Litres sold*
Pre-penalty
change
May 2001 –
April 2003
4,515,314,862
Post-penalty
change
May 2003 –
April 2005
5,902,016,763
%change
30.71%
increase
*All fuel types sold by fuel retail outlets in Queensland
There was an increase in fuel sales from 2001-03 to 2003-05 period.
As such, the results obtained in the study would not appear to be due
to any reduction in driving exposure.
Speeding recidivists
Speeding recidivist profiling
(1)
 Examined demographic characteristics, traffic offence
histories and criminal histories of speeding offenders
 Compared characteristics and offence histories of low
and mid-range offenders with high-range, repeat
speeding offenders
Speeding recidivist profiling
(2)
 Utilised the data from the speeding penalty change
study for the combined 2001 and 2003 cohorts
(because no differences on key variables of interest)
 Examined five years of traffic offence history, prior to
the index speeding offence
 Examined lifetime criminal history
Watson et al. 2009
Speeding recidivist profiling
(3)
 Three classifications of offenders were
determined ‘a priori’
– Low-range: one offence less than 15km/hr over
speed limit during study timeframe
– Mid-range: at least one offence more than 15km/hr
over the speed limit
– High-range: two or more offences, with at least two
being 30 km/hr or more over the speed limit (i.e.
high range, repeat offenders)
Breakdown of offenders
(n = 84,468)
High-range
3.7%
Mid-range
90.5%
Low-range
5.8%
Previous profiling results
(1)
• Significant differences between high-range
offenders compared to low- and mid-range
offenders
• Demographics - High-range offenders
more likely:
– Male
– Younger
– Hold Provisional licence
– Hold Motorcycle licence
Previous profiling results
(2)
Traffic History
• High-range offenders more likely than low- and
mid-range offenders to have committed:
–
–
–
–
–
Alcohol
Unlicensed driving
Dangerous driving
Seatbelt, and
‘Other’ traffic offences in the 5 years prior to index
offence
Crash history
97%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
93.7%
86%
Crash
No Crash
14%
3%
Low range
6.3%
Mid range
High range
Low-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 358.6, p < .001, c= .21
Mid-range vs. high-range: 2 (1) = 286.2, p < .001, c= .06
Compared to low- and midrange offenders...
• High-range offenders involved in significantly
greater proportion of single-vehicle crashes
• A significantly greater proportion of high-range
offenders had ‘speed’ allocated as a contributing
circumstance in crash
• But for multi-vehicle crashes, no significant
differences between offender types for most-atfault in a crash.
Criminal histories
 1000 offenders selected
– 300 random sample of low-range
– 300 random sample of mid-range
– 400 random sample of high-range
 Data provided by Queensland Police Service
 Overall, 30.5% had at least one criminal offence
–
–
–
–
–
–
15.9% property (eg. stealing, break and enter)
14.9% drug offences
10.2% offences against order (eg. public nuisance)
7.3% offences against the person (eg. assault)
7.2% traffic offences (ie. those requiring attendance at court)
4.6% regulation offences (eg. prostitution, liquor licensing)
Comparison of criminal histories
Low-range
offenders
Mid-range
offenders
High-range
offenders
Overall Criminal
history
7.0%
21.0%
55.2%
Property*
38.1%
44.4%
44.3%
Drug*
14.3%
36.5%
53.8%
Person*
14.3%
15.9%
27.1%
Traffic*
52.4%
28.6%
19.5%
Order*
14.3%
28.6%
36.7%
Regulation*
4.8%
3.2%
19.5%
Standardised residuals +/- 1.96 bolded
*% of those with criminal history
Conclusions for recidivism research
 The introduction of more severe speeding penalties in
Queensland appears to have had a absolute specific
deterrent effect and reduced re-offending in the
following two years
 However, the change appears to have had little
impact on the overall frequency of re-offending
among those who did re-offend
 Further research into the effectiveness of speeding
penalties and sanctions needed
Conclusions for recidivism research
 High-range, repeat speeding offenders appear to be
a problematic group of drivers
 The are substantially different from low- and midrange offenders on many demographic, traffic and
criminal history factors
 Need to consider innovative, tailored strategies for
reducing recidivism among high-range, repeat
offenders
Community attitudes & perceptions
 In 2011, the Auditor-General’s Office in 2 jurisdictions
(New South Wales & Victoria) conducted reviews of
speed camera programs
 Addressing community concern over use of cameras
NSW Auditor-General’s report





(1)
“Improving Road Safety: Speed Cameras”
Performance Audit
Election commitment made before 2011 State Election
Acknowledged much public debate
2 issues covered:
– were speed cameras located in areas identified as having
greatest road safety risk?
– do speed cameras reduce speeding and the number and
severity of road crashes in these locations?
 Public submissions invited on how to improve speed
camera program and speed management generally
NSW Auditor-General’s report
(2)
 Fixed cameras generally located in areas with high road
safety risk
 May be other locations for mobile cameras with greater
road safety risk than currently used
 Speed cameras change driver behaviour and have positive
road safety impact overall
 Results from individual cameras varied – crashes
decreased at some but not others
 Too early to tell impact of mobile and safety (intersection)
cameras – introduced 2010 but early signs encouraging
NSW Auditor-General’s report
(3)
 No evidence that camera sites were chosen based on
potential revenue. Site selection based on road safety
 No incentives for private contractors to generate more
offences (ie contractor payments do not relate to number of
offences)
 Traffic authority, not contractor, decides site location, roster
of enforcement hours, alternative deployment sites
 Not all camera locations consistent with site location criteria
 Annual review needed of all camera locations as part of
overarching strategy.
NSW Auditor-General’s report
 Need to annually monitor the effectiveness of each
camera and publish trends in crashes, revenue, and
speeding or infringement data for each camera
 Cameras do not change behaviour of high level
speeders (ie >45km/hr over the limit)
 Less public concern about revenue raised by police
speed enforcement (ie not cameras) yet they raise
almost same amount of money
(4)
NSW Auditor-General’s report
(5)
 93 of 141 fixed camera locations effective with clear
road safety benefits.
 Noted plan to review and relocate the remaining 38
cameras
 But, public ‘outrage’ at this possible removal saw
some cameras retained
 Current situation....
 Some cameras reactivated (not issuing fines)
 Small number removed
 Ongoing stakeholder consultation to determine future of the
remaining questioned cameras
Victorian Auditor-General’s report
(1)
‘Sections of the community and media have shown
significant interest in the road safety camera program,
voicing concerns about whether using cameras is
appropriate, the accuracy of cameras, and the validity of
infringements.
Some allege that the purpose of the road safety camera
program is to raise revenue, while major faults such
as those of the Western Ring Road fixed speed cameras in
2003 and the 9 incorrect fines issued on the Hume
Freeway point-to-point cameras in 2010 have served to
erode public confidence in the program’.
2011, p.vii
Victorian Auditor-General’s report
• The Audit examined:
– whether there is a sound rationale for the road safety
camera program
– whether the cameras are sited for road safety
outcomes
– the accuracy of the camera system, and
– whether the public can be confident that an
infringement is valid
(2)
Victorian Auditor-General’s report
• The supporting technology used and camera
operations systems provide high degree of
confidence that infringements are issued only
when clear evidence of speeding or red-light
running
• Processes and controls in place provide a
particularly high level of confidence in reliability
and integrity of road safety camera system
(3)
Victorian Auditor-General’s report
• Revenue generation demonstrably not the
primary purpose of camera program
• In fact, more revenue could be raised through
tightening operational polices that provide for
some leniency to speeding drivers
• Deployment and siting of fixed and mobile
cameras based on road safety objectives
(4)
Victorian Auditor-General’s report
• Further revisions (eg. random deployment of
mobile cameras) should strengthen current
program
• Cameras cannot identify a large proportion of
speeding motorcyclists
• Need to address gap in enforcement for
motorcyclists
(5)
Victorian Auditor-General’s report
• Suggest improvements to allay public
perceptions about program integrity & purpose:
– Ongoing systematic review and evaluation of fixed
cameras on freeways
– Program of independent testing of mobile cameras
– Need for communication strategy and public education
campaigns to specifically address widely held
misconceptions of revenue raising and camera inaccuracy
– Greater attention to promote positive contribution of road
safety camera program in Victoria
(6)
Speed management priorities
(1)
 Reduce opportunities to avoid detection and
punishment by:
− identifying best mix of automatic and manned enforcement
− investigating individuals who accumulate large amount of
demerit points (NSW & Victoria)
− developing better detection of speeding motorcyclists
− implementing innovative strategies like point-to-point (average)
enforcement which identifies persistent speeding over longer
distances
Speed management priorities
(2)
 Implement and evaluate innovative sanctions for
reducing speeding recidivism
− vehicle impoundment
− intelligent speed adaption (ISA)
− behaviour change/rehabilitation programs
Speed management priorities
(3)
 Innovative communication strategies needed to:
− challenge perception that speeding is okay and that
everyone speeds
− address community perceptions of enforcement
tolerances
− challenge perception that low level speeding is safe
− encourage voluntary use of ISA (private and fleet
vehicles)
− learn from success of others…
Thank you for this opportunity.
Do you have any questions?
[email protected]
Mark your Diaries!
International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety
Conference (ICADTS T2013)
August 2013, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre
References
(1)
Auditor-General New South Wales. (2011). Improving Road Safety: Speed Cameras, Road and Traffic
Authority - New South Wales Auditor-General’s Report.
Auditor-General Victoria (2011). Victorian Auditor-General’s Report: Road Safety Camera Program.
Australian Transport Council. (2011). National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020.
Cameron, M. (2008). Development for strategies for best practice in speed enforcement in Western
Australia –, Supplementary Report. Report 277. Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research
Centre.
Carnis, L., Rakotonirainy, A., & Fleiter, J. (2008) Speed enforcement programmes in France and
Queensland: First elements for a systematic comparison. In High risk road users - motivating behaviour
change: what works and what doesn't work? National Conference of the Australasian College of Road
Safety and the Travelsafe Committee of the Queensland Parliament, 18-19 September 2008, Brisbane.
Fleiter, J. J., Lennon, A., & Watson, B. (2007). Choosing not to speed: A qualitative exploration of
differences in perceptions about speed limit compliance and related issues. Paper presented at the
Australasian Road Safety Research Policing Education Conference, Melbourne, 17-19 October,
Melbourne.
Fleiter, J. J., Lennon, A., & Watson, B. (2010). How do other people influence your driving speed?
Exploring the 'who' and the 'how' of social influences on speeding from a qualitative perspective.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 13, 49-62.
References
(2)
Newstead, S. (2006). Evaluation of the crash effects of the Queensland speed camera program in the year
2005. Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre.
Petroulias, T. (2011). Community Attitudes to Road Safety – 2011 Survey Report. In Department of
Infrastructure and Transport (Ed.). Canberra.
Queensland TMR (2011). Queensland Road Toll Weekly Report No. 689. Year to date to Sunday 10 April
2011. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Transport & Main Roads.
Watson, B., Watson, A., Siskind, V. & Fleiter, J. (2009). Characteristics and predictors of high-range
speeding offences. Proceedings of the 2009 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education
Conference. Sydney: Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW.
Watson, B., Siskind, V., Fleiter, J. & Watson, A. (2010). Different approaches to measuring specific
deterrence: some examples from speeding offender management. Proceedings of the 2010 Australasian
Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference. Canberra: Department of Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development & Local Government.
World Health Organization (2004) World report on road traffic injury prevention. Geneva.